Thursday, October 31, 2013

Only 20% of Congress has a military background compared to 80% in 1977?

And there isn’t an organization that focuses on solving this problem year round.

Until now.

The Allen West Foundation is going to fill the gap.
We’re
going to bring conservative minorities and veterans to the table. Year
round, we will train and inspire the next leaders of the conservative
movement.

Just think of who the conservative leaders
are today . . . Senators Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, Governor Susana
Martinez, and more. They’re the ones sending shockwaves through the
liberal establishment by fighting for our freedom!

And there’s no doubt that the men and women we help right now will follow in their footsteps.

Thanks for partnering with me to fill this hole in the conservative movement.

Egypt Stresses the Importance of Separation of Powers

China: On 28 October, a car crashed and caught fire
near Tiananmen Square in Beijing, killing five people and injuring 40
people. Chinese authorities have determined that at least two of the
occupants were Uighurs. Witnesses reported the car did not try to avoid
pedestrians as it drove along the sidewalk.

Officials increased security at pivotal intersections, subway stations
and tourist sites across the capital on Tuesday. Police also notified
hotels to report on eight persons from Xinjiang in western China in
connection with the "incident."

Comment: Chinese media have avoided calling the crash a
suicide attack by Uighur militants, but it looks like a suicide car
bomb attack without the bomb. This is a serious security lapse because
Beijing usually is free from terrorist incidents. Reprisals will be
swift and severe against the Uighurs in Xinjiang and anyone who helped
the perpetrators in Beijing and en route.

Syria-Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): Update.
International inspectors overseeing the destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpile missed the 27 October deadline for visiting all
chemical weapons sites in Syria, but have provided more details of the
findings.

According to press accounts of a report by the chief of OPCW, Syria has
declared 41 facilities at 23 chemical sites where it stores
approximately 1,300 tons of precursors and agents, and over 1,200
unfilled munitions to deliver them. The OPCW inspectors corroborated the
information provided by Syria at 37 of the 41 facilities and were able
to visit 21 of the 23 sites. The remaining two sites are in contested
regions where security conditions prevented an inspection visit.

Syria also submitted information on approximately 1,000 metric tons of
Category 1 chemical weapons, most of which are precursors which are
rarely used for peaceful purposes; approximately 290 metric tons of
Category 2 substances which are toxic chemicals that pose significant
risk; and approximately 1,230 unfilled chemical munitions, which were
not described.

"In addition, the Syrian authorities reported finding two cylinders not
belonging to them, which are believed to contain chemical weapons," the
OPCW chief said.

Comment: There are no penalties for missing the 27
October deadline. The tight inspection schedule apparently was
established to ensure Syrian cooperation by a dubious US. Syrian
cooperation has made that provision look pointless.

The US-Russian agreement on eliminating the chemical weapons contains
no provision for their disposal, including who pays for it, where will
it take place, who will move the materials and how. OPCW has declared it
has no capabilities for the ultimate disposal of the materials.

Even with the unsolved problems, this inspection process has disclosed
for the first time in public the size and nature of the chemical weapons
threat that had been targeted against Israel. Regardless of the outcome
of the fighting in Syria, the elimination of 1,300 tons of chemical
weapons and 1,230 munitions would be an absolute good.

Egypt: Update on the constitution: Amr al-Shubaki, a
member of the 50-member committee tasked to amend the constitution,
provided an update to the media on 28 October on the status of key
constitutional issues, especially the system of government.

Al-Shubaki said that there is a strong tendency toward applying a
"mixed semi-presidential system."

He criticized calls for implementing a
strict parliamentary system. "Implementing the parliamentary system in
Egypt will be a disaster because we are not qualified to this system
right now (sic)."

A-Shubaki stressed the need to limit the president's authority, saying,
"The condition for establishing a successful presidential system is to
prevent the executive authority from expanding over the legislative and
judicial authorities and to separate authorities. This will be
guaranteed in the new constitution. "

"The new constitution includes a real separation between the three
authorities and two thirds of the people have the right to make a
no-confidence vote against the president of the republic because the
people have the right to withdraw confidence from the president via
referendum."

Comment: All-Shubaki is an analyst at Al Ahram Centre
for Political Studies as well as a member of the committee. His
commentaries indicate he is a secularist and a strong advocate of a
democratic government.

The comment that Egypt is not "qualified" for a parliamentary system is
a reflection of the experience under the Mursi regime which used
democratic elections to enable him to implement an Islamist agenda that
Mursi did not mention during the presidential election campaign last
year. The constitutional committee is trying to insert safeguards
against that.

Another safeguard is a stricter separation of powers among the
presidency, legislature and judiciary so as to limit executive power
relative to the other branches of government.

A third safeguard is a novel provision by which the president is
subject to a no-confidence vote by the electorate through a referendum.
This would be independent of the election cycle.

The thinking shows an earnest effort to guard against abuse of power.
They provision that al Shubaki did not discuss is the amendment
procedure. In some countries, the national legislature can vote
constitutional amendments without a public referendum. An easy amendment
process is an invitation to abuse.

A weakness in a no-confidence vote provision is that it requires a
degree of political awareness and ownership of the system by most of the
electorate. Even with a well-written constitution, it is far from clear
that Egyptians outside the major cities have those characteristics,
except when the issues are religion and taxes. In any event, even the
best constitution is no safeguard against a determined military coup
cabal.

Obamacare May Be Beyond Salvaging

Apparently, President Barack Obama was fibbing when he said in 2009
that under his Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan,
you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." On Wednesday,
Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler rated that pledge as a
four-Pinocchio whopper.

On Monday, Peter Lee, the executive director of Covered California,
the Golden State's Obamacare exchange, informed the San Francisco
Chronicle's editorial board that 800,000 to 900,000 Californians will
lose their individual health care plans at the end of the year.
Nationally, as many as half of the millions of consumers with private
plans will lose their coverage and have to buy an Obamacare plan. Asked
about Obama's promise, Lee responded that it was "not well-stated" and
"may have been an inarticulate way of describing what the realities
are."

Lee argues that Covered California policies are better than today's
private plans. Exchange policies offer no lifetime cap on benefits,
preventive care with no copayments, and no refusal for pre-existing
conditions. Quoth Lee, consumers "can shop as they never did before."

Likewise, White House spokesman Jay Carney charged that the current
individual health care market is "the Wild West" with "substandard"
care. The suggestion is that those who are about to be thrown off their
health plans should be grateful.

James Stokes of Novato, Calif., isn't a happy shopper. An Obama voter,
he wrote to me that his family premiums will more than double if he
buys under Covered California. "Double premiums for the same service as
before," Stokes wrote. "Am I missing something here?"

Robert Laszewski, a Virginia insurance industry consultant, won't be
sending the White House a thank-you note. Blue Cross canceled his
"Cadillac" policy. "Never had a procedure for either my wife or myself
turned down," he blogged. "Wellness benefits are without a deductible.
It covers mental health, drugs, maternity, anything I can think of."

If he buys on the exchange, Laszewski found, he'll have to pay a 66 percent higher premium for reduced benefits.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton has drafted a
"Keep Your Health Plan Act" to save people such as Stokes and Laszewski.

I asked Laszewski what he thought of the Upton bill. "This makes
sense, given all of the Obamacare government delays," he replied. He
recognizes the downsides: "Will the insurance companies be expected to
take all of the sick people with no expectation they will get the
healthy people to pay the bills? Will the sick be able to sign up at
will while the healthy sit it out?"

"From a political standpoint, it looks like a reasonable compromise,"
reasoned Joshua Archambault, health policy director for the Pioneer
Institute. "From a policy standpoint, it could put the insurers in a
very tough spot." Insurers based their new premiums on the expectation
that they'd enroll healthy consumers who cannot keep their old plans.

"If we can get a delay, we should delay it," argues Lanhee Chen, a
Hoover Institution fellow and former policy adviser to Mitt Romney.

Chen can think of modest fixes -- such as adjusting subsidies to
reflect the cost of living -- but sees dicey politics for Republicans
who suggest them: "It's just politically so hard because then you get
accused of being sympathetic to the law."

Because Obamacare is going to start Jan. 1, I'd like to see a
Republicans-to-the-rescue plan. Instead, the R's are going for the
cheap-and-easy moment -- for example, Upton's two-page bill that somehow
expects insurers to play along.

Maybe Republicans don't think it's in their interest to fix the
Affordable Care Act. Or maybe there's no point in reviving the canary in
the coal mine. Most likely, like the Democrats who wrote it, the
Republicans have no idea how to fix Obamacare.

“Controversial ads on Edmonton Transit Service buses will be removed”CTV News

“ETS removing ‘racist’ honour-killing ad” Edmonton Journal

Now
helping Muslim girls is “racist”: Edmonton Transit has caved in to
Islamic supremacist demands and taken down our AFDI bus ads offering
help to Muslim girls living in fear of honor killing.

The
enemedia is calling our ads “dishonorable” and, above all,
“controversial.” It’s “dishonorable” and “controversial” to save lives?
Under the Sharia it is. And so in Edmonton, Muslim Councillor Amarjeet
Sohi ordered officials to take down the signs, immediately.

Yet vicious blood libels against Israel are OK, and are running on transit systems across Canada.

Apparently Muslims complained about our ads. Why?

Is
this how the Canadian Muslim community responds to the desperate
circumstances of Muslim girls living in devout Muslim homes? They deny,
obfuscate and dissemble. The Muslim community protects the religious
honor code, while smearing and libeling the truth tellers coming to the
aid of these girls as “racists.”

Honor
killing is a grim reality that is largely ignored, and girls are
suffering as a result.

Muslim fathers kill their daughters for real or
imagined sexual indiscretions that have supposedly dishonored the
family. Nothing is done because political correctness prevents us from
speaking about the problem honestly. Muslims commit 91 percent of honor
killings worldwide, and Islamic law stipulates no penalty for a parent
who kills his child.

These girls need and deserve protection.

AFDI’s new honor killing awareness campaign was designed to help young girls living in fear of the Islamic honor code.

We
are not giving up. We are going to challenge their decision in
Edmonton, and run the ads elsewhere in Canada. The fact that Islamic
supremacist groups are so threatened by these ads shows how desperately
they are needed. Clearly we struck a nerve: these Muslim groups don’t
want people speaking out against honor killing, and so we have to speak
out louder than ever.

Please
help us. We have to mount a legal challenge in Edmonton, as well as run
the ads elsewhere in Canada. We can’t do it without your help.
Remember: what happens in Canada will soon enough happen in the U.S.:
Canada is just farther down the same road we are on, the road of
appeasement and capitulation to Islamic supremacists.

Only 42 percent approve of Obama's job performance, according the poll.
That's down 5 points from early October. And 51 percent disapprove of
his performance, which is tied for his all-time high disapproval.

And for the first time in the poll's history, Obama's personal approval
ratings were lower than his disapproval ratings. The poll showed that
41 percent approve of him on a personal level and 45 percent disapprove.

The pollsters told NBC that no single issue is responsible for the
declines. Rather, a combination of the NSA spying scandal, questions
over his "red line" comment on attacking Syria, the government shutdown,
and problems with the Obamacare website rollout all played a roll.

In fact, the poll showed the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, also
slipping in approval along with the Republican Party and Congress as a
whole.

Thirty-seven percent now view the healthcare law as a good idea, with 47
percent opposing it. The previous poll showed 38 percent in favor and
43 against.

But in a separate question, 40 percent say they are now less confident
about Obamacare after learning more about it. Only 9 percent are more
confident. Exactly half said there has been no change in their thinking.
The full poll can be read here.

In United States v Bond, The Supreme Court Could Be Ruling On The Safety Of All American Rights

On more than one occasion President Barack Obama or a top
Administration official has lamented that the Commander in Chief is not a
king or a dictator and is, therefore, unable to ram his progressive
policies down the greater American public’s collective throat as quickly
as his liberal supporters would like. And on several occasions, the
sole hurdle halting the President in his dash toward liberal utopia—or
totalitarian hell, depending on whom you ask — has been a pesky
226-year-old document called the Constitution of the United States of
America.

But the Obama Justice Department is working to change that.

Attorneys at the Justice Department are currently working to advance a
Supreme Court argument that the Federal government should be allowed to
invoke international treaties as legal basis for policies that
government officials are unable to put into place because they conflict
with the Nation’s Constitution.

The Supreme Court is slated to begin hearing oral arguments in United States v Bond early next month — a case in which the court will determine, according to SCOTUSblog:

(1) Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on
Federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’
authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in
circumstances where the Federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the
scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is
concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations;
and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention
Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach
ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state
and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult
Constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality
of this Court’s decision in Missouri v Holland.

In short, United States v Bond concerns a woman poisoning her
husband’s mistress and, in doing so, violating the international ban on
chemical weapons. Per the Constitution, the woman should be prosecuted
at the State level — but the Federal government prosecuted her under the
Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That is the same Act that Syrian Dictator Bashir al-Assad is a
accused of violating and is the justification that many war-hungry
politicians recently used as basis for a military attack on the Syrian
government.

The Constitutional question is whether the Federal government can use treaties that Congress has ratified as Federal policy.

A 1920 Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v Holland upheld a
treaty requiring the Federal government to enact laws regulating
migratory birds after a similar statute was deemed unConstitutional in a
lower court. At the time, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that
treaty power extends beyond Congress’s regular lawmaking clout.

During a speech at the Heritage Foundation this week, Senator Ted
Cruz (R-Texas) explained the danger in accepting the Justice
Department’s argument that international treaties and Federal policy are
intertwined in domestic matters.

“If the broad interpretation of the Missouri v Holland
snippet is accurate … you now have a roadmap – if you find the
limitations on the Federal government’s authority irksome, any President
has a simple path to get around it,” Cruz said. “Find any nation in the
world, negotiate a treaty agreeing to do what you couldn’t do
otherwise, and if the Senate ratifies it – and by the way that means you
can cut the House of Representatives out of everything – then suddenly
the Federal government has authority it didn’t have before.

“That is a radical interpretation of the treaty power. That is what is at issue in Bond:
does the treaty power enable the Federal government to circumvent the
structural limitations on the authority of the Federal government?” Cruz
continued.

If that is the case, the Senator surmised that the President could
even go so far as signing a treaty giving away any American rights
protected by the Constitution.

“The proposition that the Treaty Clause is a trump card that defeats
all of the remaining structural limitations on the Federal government is
not a proposition that is logically defensible,” Cruz said.

Cultural psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years

From Jihad Watch

While almost all other
cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and
egalitarian societies, one culture managed to keep even its most brutal
and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. Still
today, the majority of Muslims prefer to live by values that can be
traced all the way back to the desert tribes in which the founder of
their religion lived. Getting to know life in Muslim families and
societies is like traveling back in time to the time of Muhammad. Here
one finds shocking laws and traditions that are obviously criminal and
inhumane -- but for some reason accepted -- in our otherwise humanistic
culture.

While non-Muslim scientists invent new fantastic medicines and
technologies daily, discover the most amazing things about the universe,
its building blocks and inhabitants, and Western voters and politicians
have created the most humane, rich and free societies in world history,
most Islamic countries are still amputating limbs for theft, stoning
women and homosexuals, heavily inbred, denying people free speech and
democracy, and contributing absolutely nothing when it comes to science,
human rights or peace.

What are the cultural psychological factors making Islam able to stay medieval for 1,400 years?

Religion
One main factor is that while all other religions allow their
followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them
relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs,
Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as
apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be
punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic
societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations.

The fact that Muslims deviating from the Quranic world view are to be
punished has the direct consequence that scientific facts conflicting
with the naive and childish world view held in pre-Enlightenment
cultures are suppressed. Together with massive inbreeding -- 70 percent
of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are
from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) -- this has
resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only
one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and
are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer
books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than
the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.

Within Islam, faith and tradition is obviously valued far, far more
than inventions and discoveries that would ease suffering and lead to a
more reasonable understanding of the complexity of the universe and the
potential of its inhabitants.

Child rearing
Another powerful defence mechanism within Islamic culture is found
within Muslim child rearing. A very real threat of violence and even
death is over every Muslim child's head, should he or she decide to
choose another life style than that of its parents. Even if the parents
allow their child to choose his or her own religion -- or none at all --
other Muslims are dedicating their lives to kill them. Together with
the wide use of violence and even torture within Muslim families, the
horrific amount of daily family executions of Muslim youth, this is
enough to keep the vast majority from even considering escaping the way
of the sharia. The Quran's and the Hadiths' many promises of hellfire to
those who go against Muhammad's orders and example scares many from
leaving the culture that brings them so much suffering. I clearly
remember how several Muslim inmates at the prison I was working in as a
psychologist expressed what seemed to be compassion, when I told them
that I do not believe in Allah.

In order further to make sure that the children grow up to follow the
same patterns as their family, many of them are subjected to
mind-numbing repetitions of Islam's exceedingly violent scriptures,
making many of them ticking time bombs where ever they live.

Marriage
Muhammad's teaching that Muslim females can only marry Muslim males
-- often within their own bloodline -- further bolster the culture of
his followers against outside influence. The fact that the wives are
kept like slaves in the way that they can only divorce if they are set
free by an Islamic authority, keeps them from escaping the religion and
and very often violent husbands, that leaves them with so few freedoms
and rights. Should they chose to run away or divorce, they will in most
case be cut off by their family, the often violent father is entitled to
the children, and because they are categorized as outcasts and have had
no or very little right to educate themselves, the possibility to
sustain themselves is strongly limited. On top of that, many will live
with a death sentence over their head for the rest of their lives for
having insulted the family's honor.

Almost all Muslim women are thus threatened or even forced to fulfill
their responsibility of continuing and passing on the Islamic culture,
including its many misogynistic aspects. And the marriage rules within
Islam makes sure that non-Muslim influence is not invited into the
family.

View on non-Muslims
One basic principle within Islam is hating and harming non-Muslims.
The Islamic scriptures are full of dehumanizing propaganda against us,
and contain dozens of orders for Muslims to suppress, harm and kill
atheists and followers of all other religions. The devaluation and
demonizing of non-Muslims can easily be compared to the propaganda
spread about the enemy by governments in wartime in order remove their
soldiers' psychological hindrances that would otherwise keep them from
attacking the opponent. Not surprisingly, Muslims are not allowed to
take non-Muslims as friends.

Thus keeping a mental and physical distance to people from other
cultures, Islam prevents its followers from being influenced and
inspired by our less barbaric values.

Ethnic pride
Another cultural psychological factor enabling Islamic culture to
remain unchanged in a globalised world with all its possibilities
concerns Muslims' ethnic pride. No matter how ridiculous or embarrassing
it may seem to the outsider, most Muslims are proud of being Muslim and
a follower of Islam. According to Islam they are destined to dominate
the rest of us, and we are so bad that we deserve the eternal fire.
Working as a psychologist in prison, I heard how the Muslim inmates talk
about their non-Muslim victims -- and their victims were always
non-Muslims, unless it concerned women or rival gangs -- and I have no
doubt that there exists a severe and widespread racism against
non-Muslims among Muslims.

The cultural osmosis
Islamic culture thus has several defence mechanisms that prevents it
and its followers from being influenced by non-Muslim values. At the
same time, Westerners expressing pride in our country, culture or faith
are immediately branded as racists, nationalistic or intolerant.

At the same time, we in the West have a longstanding tradition of
tolerance and openness, together with the multicultural agenda pushed by
the Left, the Media, EU and UN. The cultural osmosis can therefore go
only one way: Islam stays where it is, while it drags the West back into
medieval darkness, with its limitation of free speech and
pre-enlightenment-style acceptance of religious dogmas and
sensitivities.

“Don’t do this to me,” said Kathleen Sebelius when she thought she was
off-mike…how about ‘don’t do this (ObamaCare) to ‘We the People.’

And so the hearings on the in-trouble ObamaCare website began, as
noticeably nervous, fidgety, and obviously NOT wanting to be there, HHS
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday testified before the House Energy
and Commerce Committee…the very Committee holding hearings as to the
cause and effect of the troubled debut of ObamaCare’s official
health care website, Healthcare.gov.

In a carefully orchestrated cacophony of lies, innuendos, and
evasiveness fed into by the Democratic party loyalists in
attendance…loyalists whose job was to heap praise on this monstrosity of
a health care act NO matter what…Sebelius took an oath to tell the
truth…the whole truth…and NOTHING but the truth...which of course we all
know she did NOT do as she must cover herself (and of course cover for Obama) and her ineptitude as calls for her resignation continue to grow.

Starting off with being asked for the exact numbers of enrollment in the
marketplace, Sebelius insisted accurate numbers would not be available
until mid-November.

“The numbers that we have now just aren’t reliable. We want to be able
to present accurate data,” she croaked…more like we need time to fix and
adjust the numbers to meet our agenda…and down it went from there.

Trying to deflect blame off Barack HUSSEIN Obama…actually being his
human shield of the kind all good muslims use…and his outright LYING to
the American people about their being able to keep their current health
plans…“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor,
period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your
health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what"…and
despite the 2 million cancellation notices that have already been sent
out…with more on the way…Sebelius had the audacity to claim that the
Obama White House has kept its promises to the American people.

I don’t think this woman is living on the same planet as the rest of us
because what doesn’t she get about 2 million policies to date being
cancelled solely because of ObamaCare. And Sebelius even had the gall
to claim that it was the insurance companies altering their ‘inadequate’
plans in order to conform with Obamacare as the reason for the
cancellations, that insurance companies routinely alter coverage in
the individual marketplace, and that people on these plans often hold
them for less than a year.

NO…I do NOT think so as the insurance companies are being forced to
cancel both long and short-term policy holders because they CANNOT
afford to alter their ‘adequate’ plans…plans people are happy with…to
add on all the lunacy that is part and parcel of ObamaCare. And it is
ObamaCare that drove these cancellations because ObamaCare’s very goal
is to drive people into the exchanges, for that is the only way possible
for Obama to monetarily sustain the health care system…a system that
would collapse under its own weight if private insurance was allowed to
stay.

Reading off a prepared statement…and showing NO visible signs of
remorse at all…Sebelius said that she regretted that perusing
HealthCare.gov has been a “miserably frustrating experience” for many,
yet she still continued to bloviate that Obamacare and its website have
been working well for millions of Americans, albeit slower than she
would have liked. What I’d like to know is who those millions of
Americans are as the reality is that most of the few who have been able
to sign onto the website have NOT signed up for the ObamaCare exchanges
but have signed up for Medicaid… further taxing the already overloaded
health care system for poorer and disabled Americans.

And the blame game continued on as Kathleen Sebelius placed blame on
everybody for the website’s failures but on its rightful owner…as in her
boss Barack HUSSEIN Obama….and doing so with the same smug look on her
face that we see time and again on Obama’s face as he blames everybody
but himself when anything goes wrong. Trying to dump the website’s
problems in the lap of contractor Verizon…blaming Verizon for the server
failures while at the same time claiming the server and the site have
NEVER crashed…yet another LIE was exposed for early yesterday morning
the site went down again and stayed down the entire time she was
testifying …in fact it went down for the third time in as many
days…showing just how incompetent Kathleen Sebelius is in doing the job
she was appointed to do.

And in Sebelius’ defending of ObamaCare…her own law per se…a law she
obviously does NOT understand because when asked if she would sign on to
one of the ObamaCare exchanges her reply was that it would be illegal
for her to do so. And we could see her nose visibly growing as she took off and put on her glasses for the umpteenth time...for that’s
one big LIE…a LIE on the same scope as Obama’s ‘you can keep your health
insurance’ LIE. And while it’s NOT illegal for her to sign on her NOT
signing on borders on the criminal…to me at least…because what’s good
for us common folks should damn well be just as good for those like her
who sit in their ivory towers dictating to the rest of us what we can and cannot do.

Bottom line...while this hearing was really just a ‘dog and pony show’ done solely
for the cameras, Sebelius and her Democratic cohorts continue to try
and herald ObamaCare’s supposed pluses…but truth be told ObamaCare is
actually worse than any form of socialized medicine in existence today,
because ObamaCare was designing right from the get-go to be a total and
complete dismantling our America’s medical system. ObamaCare is NOT
about better medicine…is NOT about better medical care…reducing
insurance costs…or even about covering the previously uninsured…but is
about ObamaCare and its so-called ‘glitches’ being just a diversion so
that when it dies after a very theatrical played for maximum affect
death…Barack HUSSEIN Obama can then implement what was his always wanted
goal…to implement a single payer system of health care…meaning Medicaid
for everyone…and he could care less that it will be we taxpayers who
will shoulder the burden of its cost.

And while Kathleen Sebelius told the Committee, “Let me say directly to
these Americans: You deserve better. I apologize. I’m accountable to you
for fixing these problems…Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m
responsible,” the truth is that as president the blame is the ultimate
responsibility of Barack HUSSEIN Obama to take and no one else…and a
real man and real president would do just that.

Followers

Follow My Posts by Email

The Patriot Factor

I am an American Patriot...part of the grassroots movement of bloggers spreading the truth the media will not. I am also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on American Political Radio. http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history